Hablamos Español

We Are Your
Criminal Defense Firm

Jan 22, 2014

Discovering Evidence in Criminal Cases

Posted By
The Law Office of Guillermo Lara Jr.

The Michael Morton Act Ensures an Even Playing Field Between Prosecution
and Defense

In 1986, Christine Morton was found brutally beaten and murdered in her
home near Austin. The following year, her husband, Michael Morton, was
convicted and received a life sentence for the crime. Morton spent 25
years in prison until a 2011 DNA test implicated another man, Mark Allan
Norwood. Morton was formally cleared later that year.

There are many stories of defendants being exonerated with DNA evidence.
But Morton’s case was particularly noteworthy because of the actions
(or inactions) of the prosecuting attorney, Ken Anderson. While Morton’s
attorneys sought an appeal for the DNA test in 2011, they discovered evidence
that was in Anderson’s possession during the trial in 1987 which
indicated that somebody other than Morton murdered Christine. This “exculpatory
evidence” included a statement taken from Morton’s three year
old son who identified the murderer as a “monster” with a
mustache (not his father). Another document was a police interview of
Morton’s neighbors who identified a suspicious vehicle and passenger
parked across the street during the days leading up to Christine Morton’s
death (again, not Morton).

Morton’s attorneys argued that there was probable cause to believe
that Anderson had willingly and knowingly withheld the exculpatory evidence.
In 2013, a Court of Inquiry was convened to determine whether Anderson
could be held in contempt of court for his failure to provide the exculpatory
evidence to Morton’s attorneys. The Court found that there was enough
evidence of wrongdoing on Anderson’s part. He was ultimately forced
to resign his position as a state district judge, sentenced to 10 days
in jail, and had his law license revoked.

The Morton case exposed an extremely egregious example of how easily justice
can be derailed when winning is prioritized above everything else. But
it also pointed out a flaw in the requirements placed on prosecuting attorneys
regarding what details they were legally obligated to make available to
Morton’s attorneys. When it comes to criminal trials, the U.S. Supreme
Court has held that prosecutors are required by the due process clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to disclose any evidence that is “material”
to the defendant’s guilt or innocence or when it affects punishment
(i.e. sentencing).This kind of evidence is often called “exculpatory”
or “Brady” evidence, named for the Court’s decision in
Brady v. Maryland. 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

In hindsight, it is not difficult to see that the statements of Morton’s
son and neighbor should have been classified as Brady/exculpatory evidence.
But Ken Anderson’s attorney maintained throughout the controversy
that the evidence would not have made any difference in the outcome of
Morton’s trial. The Court of Inquiry thought differently and found
that Anderson deliberately withheld the evidence to gain an unfair advantage.

Effects of the Morton Case

Last year, the State legislature unanimously passed the Michael Morton
Act (SB 1611) as a safeguard against any potential measures by prosecutors
to deprive defendants of evidence that may be favorable to their case.
The law officially went into effect on January 1 and will apply to all
future prosecutions.

The key points of the law include:

Establishing an open discovery process for materials (e.g. offense reports,
recorded statements of witnesses, police reports, but excluding work product)
that are material to any matter involved in the case that are in the possession
or control of the State or anyone under contract with the State. SB 1611
Sec. 2(a).

Reiterates that the State is required to disclose any exculpatory, impeachment,
or mitigating document, item or information that is in their custody that
“tends to negate the guilt of the defendant or would reduce the
punishment for the offense charged.” Sec. 2(h).

If the State discovers additional documents before, during, or after the
trial, they must disclose it under the same conditions as section 2(h)
and must promptly disclose the information to the defendant or the court.
Sec. 2(k).

No prosecution treads lightly when it comes to convicting an accused criminal
of a crime. As shown in this case, the need to put someone behind bars
can lead to some prosecutors hiding information in order to prove their
point instead of letting a case rest stagnant. While legislation helps
to prevent instances like this from ever happening again, the best offense
is a solid defense.

Our San Antonio lawyer is available anytime of the week, day or night,
for those that have been accused of a crime. Criminal charges are too
seriously to take lightly, and they can serious affect many people's
lives. Take actions now!
Contact our firm right away to speak to a legal representative that can help!

The information on this website is for general information purposes only.
Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual
case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt
or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.